December 06, 2009

A new Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) report found that 60 million Americans are "unbanked" or "underbanked". Unbanked means you don't have a checking or savings account; 17 million people fall into this category. Underbanked means you have a checking or savings account but you use money orders, check-cashing services, payday loans, rent-to-own agreements, or pawnshops at least once a year; 43 million people fall into this category. The unbanked and underbanked often conduct their financial business outside the banking system, leaving many to be preyed upon by unreasonably priced (dare I say, unscrupulous) financial services from non-bank institutions, like the check-cashing services. These services can be expensive and lead people into a lot of debt.

Lower-income and minority populations are disproportionately represented among the unbanked and underbanked. Households with less than $30,000 account for at least 71% of the unbanked. Furthermore, an estimated 21.7% of black households and 19.3% of Hispanic households are unbanked.

An FDIC survey found that 73% of banks are aware that their market areas included significant unbanked and/or underbanked populations. Though less than 18% of banks said that expanding services to these populations was a priority in their business strategies. "Banks have largely ignored the unbanked and underbanked, arguing that it's difficult to figure out how to make money off them. But the FDIC says it may look at using the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) -- and the weight that the act carries in bank examinations -- to encourage financial institutions to provide low-cost banking services and products." The CRA was passed in 1977 to address the shortage of credit in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. However, there was little focus on the need for banks to offer reasonably priced basic financial services, like check cashing, money orders, affordable small loans, and savings accounts. The CRA regulation doesn't give as much weight to affordable banking services as it does loans or investments. The FDIC is exploring a proposal that would give more weight to basic financial services in determining the CRA rating. A senior vice president of regulatory compliance for the American Bankers Association argued if the FDIC were to explicitly state that creating certain products to serve the unbanked and underbanked met the CRA requirement, financial institutions would welcome the inducement.

The author of the article sums it up perfectly: "Whatever incentive is used, the government should take care to ensure that the products are truly helpful and affordable. If the housing crisis has shown us anything, it's that major lending institutions aren't above taking advantage of low-income and credit-challenged people [oh snap!]. The traditional banking system can be as abusive as the non-bank financial institutions when it comes to the underprivileged. We should care, however, that millions of people aren't banking and that the alternatives are expensive and can trap people into years of debt. At least with the banks, we have the federal power to force them to do the right thing. And now is the time to make them serve communities that have been longing for better and more affordable banking services." (Full Story)

---

The Corruption Perceptions Index measures the perceived levels of corruption in a country. Corruption is defined as "the abuse of entrusted power for private gain." The scores for the index were determined by interviewing experts and business people both inside and outside the country. The scores are 1 to 10, where 10 is the least corrupt.

The top five least corrupt countries are:

1. New Zealand (9.4)

2. Denmark (9.3)

3. Singapore (9.2)

3. Sweden (9.2)

5. Switzerland (9.0)

The top five most corrupt countries are:

1. Somalia (1.1)

2. Afghanistan (1.3)

3. Myanmar (1.4)

4. Sudan (1.5)

5. Iraq (1.5)

The United States is ranked the 19th least corrupt nation (7.5). (Full Story)

December 05, 2009

A Swedish department store has pulled a line of North Korean-made designer jeans off their shelves once they found out they were from North Korea. The store wants to avoid any controversy that may arise with having ties to North Korea -- a very isolated country that rules with absolute authority. Most North Koreans are prohibited from accessing outside TV, radio, or internet, and only elites are allowed to leave the country. The store's director said, "For us this is not a question of Noko Jeans -- this is a question about a political issue that [our department store] doesn't want to be associated with." Adding that the department store is not "the forum for discussion" on North Korea.

Noko Jeans is a line started by three Swedish entrepreneurs. The jeans are cut, made, and trimmed by factory workers in North Korea, while the materials are from other countries. The three Swedish owners hoped their label would help break North Korea's isolation through increased trade with the West. One owner explained, "This is not a support project (for Kim Jong Il), but it is a way for us to get closer to the country and, in a controversial fashion, shake this isolation up a bit."

Interestingly, the Noko Jeans only come in black, partly because blue jeans are associated with the United States and are stigmatized in North Korea. Jeans have been banned in North Korea for years because they are considered a symbol of U.S. imperialism. In 2005, the country's women were even urged to refrain from wearing trousers, saying that Western clothing "dampens the revolutionary spirit and blurs national pride." (Full Story)

---

An Arizona man who leaves jugs of water in the desert for illegal immigrants may face prison. A federal jury in June convicted Walt Staton (a member of the group No More Deaths, which supports humanitarian aid along the border) of littering in the Buenos Aires National Widelife Refuge. A judge then ordered him to pick up trash for 300 hours, sentenced him to a year of unsupervised probation, and banned him from the refuge for a year.

He was scheduled to be re-sentenced on Friday after he told a U.S. magistrate last month that he objected to the court's punishment on legal and moral grounds. He asked to have his sentence modified or suspended pending appeal. However, the magistrate denied his motion and threatened to double his community service to 600 hours or give him 25 days in prison. The magistrate also scheduled a probation violation hearing for December 21. (Full Story)

I can't believe this guy actually was arrested and is being sentenced. The desert terrain that these immigrants are crossing is very dangerous. The conditions can seriously injure or kill someone. And these immigrants are braving these conditions to get an opportunity at a better life or to make more money to provide for their families. I think leaving jugs of water in the desert, to help keep these people alive, is a noble act that should be worthy of positive recognition. I can't believe he's actually being charged with littering. That leaving jugs of water for people for humanitarian reasons is considered the same offense as ignorantly throwing a candy wrapper on the ground.

December 04, 2009

Over 70 disabled Bosnians, many in wheelchairs, occupied the parliament building on Thursday and refused to leave until Bosnia ratified the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. They set up camp in one of assembly halls yesterday, which is the International Day of Disabled People. Many of the disabled are victims of the 1992-1995 war. Their main complaint is that the support payments they get from the state are too low and inconsistent. The head of Bosnia's disability association said, "We want a state-level law on disabled persons, and an end to discrimination between war invalids, civilian war victims, and individuals with hereditary disability." Parliamentary deputies said the U.N. convention could not be addressed until Monday at the earliest. (Full Story)

---

At a Q&A session with Russian citizens, someone asked Putin if he would run again for president in 2010. He said, "I will think about it." (Full Story)

No one saw this coming...Talk about a huge shock...

---

The Supreme Court in Burma says it may allow Aung San Suu Kyi, the pro-democracy leader, to appeal against her extended detention. She was initially put under house arrest in 1990 after her party, The National League for Democracy, won the general election. Suu Kyi would have taken the role of Prime Minister. Instead, the military junta said the election results were nullified and they refused to hand over power. She was then put under house arrest. She's been under house arrest for more than 14 of the past 20 years. Earlier this year, she was sentenced to a further 18 months of house arrest as a result of an American who swam to her lakeside home. She was charged with harboring him, which violated her house arrest. The court said they would hear the case on December 21. "Serving the additional time of her sentence would keep Ms. Suu Kyi in detention during Burma's first election in two decades, scheduled for next year." (Full Story)

Call me a pessimist, but the military rulers have kept her under house arrest for more than 14 years and they keep finding ways to extend her house arrest once her sentence term is coming up...and then you expect me to believe that they're going to release her and let her be free during an election (though I doubt it will be a fair election)? They might let her appeal (and try to act like they're being fair), but I'm skeptical that they'll let her free. I feel this a hollow gesture.

---

The Senate approved an amendment (proposed by Barbara Mikulski, D-MD) to the health care reform bill that requires insurers to cover preventive health screenings for women (like mammograms and pap tests) free of charge. In other words, insurance co-pays and deductibles for preventive health screenings will be eliminated. Ms. Mikulski said these services would include screenings for breast, cervical, ovarian, and lung cancer; heart disease; diabetes; as well as postpartum depression and domestic violence. "The underlying bill would eliminate deductibles and co-payments for many preventive services for men, women, and children. But Ms. Mikulski said it did not adequately address the 'unique needs' of women", and that's why she proposed the amendment.

The amendment passed 61-39. They needed 60 votes. Three Republicans voted in favor (Olympia Snowe [who also was a co-sponsor of the amendment] and Susan Collins of Maine and David Vitter of Louisiana). Two Democrats voted against the amendment (Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin). Feingold voted against it because he said the Senate should have found a way to pay for the costs of the proposal. Nelson voted against the bill because, huge shock, he said the amendment should have explicitly excluded abortion from the definition of preventive care. (Full Story)

As for all the other Republicans that voted against the amendment...seriously, you voted against free mammograms and pap tests?! Why don't you just punch your daughters in the uterus.

December 03, 2009

Interesting article by Elizabeth Warren on the struggling middle class. Some highlights:

"Today, one in five Americans is unemployed, underemployed, or just plain out of work. One in nine families can't make the minimum payment on their credit cards. One in eight mortgages is in default or foreclosure. One in eight Americans is on food stamps. More than 120,000 families are filing for bankruptcy every month. The economic crisis has wiped more than $5 trillion from pensions and savings, has left family balance sheets upside down, and threatens to put ten million homeowners out on the street.

The crisis facing the middle class started more than a generation ago. Even as productivity rose, the wages of the average fully-employed male have been flat since the 1970s. But core expenses kept going up. By the early 2000s, families were spending twice as much (adjusted for inflation) on mortgages than they did a generation ago -- for a house that was, on average, only ten percent bigger and 25 years older. They also had to pay twice as much to hang on to their health insurance.

To cope, millions of Americans put a second parent into the workforce. But higher housing and medical costs combined with new expenses for child care, the costs of a second car to get to work, and higher taxes combined to squeeze families even harder. Even with two incomes, they tightened their belts. Families today spend less than they did a generation ago on food, clothing, furniture, appliances, and other flexible purchases -- but it hasn't been enough to save them. Today's families have spent all their income, have spent all their savings, and have gone into debt to pay for college, to cover serious medical problems, and just to stay afloat a little while longer."

(Full Story)

---

According to an Associated Press-MTV poll, more than one in four teenagers have been involved in "sexting" (sharing sexually explicit photos, videos, or chats by cellphone or online) in some form. (Full Story)

---

According to a new Thomson Reuters poll, 59.9% of Americans would like a public option as part of the health care reform legislation. Though they are bit more doubtful about the short-term effects of health care reform. 35% strongly disagree that the quality of health care will be better in 12 months. 52% strongly disagree the amount of money spent on health care will be less 12 months from now. 23% believe it will be easier for people to receive the care they need a year from now. (Full Story)

It would be interesting to see the results of how they feel the reform will be in the long-run (i.e., not just a year from now. It takes time for legislation to be implemented).

December 02, 2009

A 26-year-old Iranian doctor that was a whistleblower and exposed the torture of jailed protesters, died last month of "poisoning by drugs". He ate a delivery salad that was laced with an overdose of blood pressure medication. Investigators are still trying to determine whether his death was a suicide or murder. The opposition fears he was killed because of what he knew.

Ramin Pourandarjani was a doctor that testified to a parliamentary committee that a young protester he treated died from severe physical torture at Kahrizak, a prison on the outskirts of Tehran where hundreds of opposition protesters were taken. He then reported that security officials forced him to list the cause of death as meningitis. According to an opposition website, Pourandarjani said that, "officials in Kahrizak threatened that if I disclosed the causes of the wounds of the injured at Kahrizak, I would not be able to live."

Last week, Iran's top police commander insisted the death was a suicide. He said Pourandarjani faced criminal charges over failure to fulfill his duties to treat detainees and killed himself in despair. (Full Story)

---

Interesting article on the effect of someone's race on the job hunt and the hiring process. "There is ample evidence that racial inequities remain when it comes to employment. Black joblessness has long far outstripped that of whites. And strikingly, the disparity for the first 10 months of this year, as the recession has dragged on, has been even more pronounced for those with college degrees, compared with those without." According to figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate for black male college graduates 25 and older in 2009 is nearly twice the rate for white male college graduates -- 8.4% compared to 4.4%. Furthermore, an academic study published several years ago in The American Economic Review found that job applicants with black-sounding names received 50% fewer callbacks than those with white-sounding names (the article is entitled, "Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal?"). Another study published this year in The Journal of Labor Economics found that white, Asian, and Hispanic managers tended to hire more whites and fewer blacks than black managers did. Another recent study published in the academic journal Social Problems found that white males receive substantially more job leads for high-level supervisory positions than women or other minorities. Many higher-level jobs are usually not posted and depend on word-of-mouth and informal networks, which can leave minorities at a disadvantage. "Discrimination in many cases may not even be intentional, some job seekers pointed out, but simply a matter of people gravitating toward similar people, casting about for the right "cultural fit," a buzzword often heard in corporate circles." (Full Story)

---

Jacob Zuma, the President of South Africa, has announced that all South African babies under the age of one will be treated if they test HIV-positive and he promises more anti-retroviral drugs (ARVs). This is a departure from the previous administration, in which the government of President Mbeki said that ARVs were too costly and even suggested they could be poisonous, despite the advice of the world's major health organizations. The Mbeki government even denied the link between HIV and AIDS. Mbeki's critics accuse him of causing 300,000 deaths by not distributing ARVs quickly enough to people with HIV.

South Africa already runs the largest anti-retroviral program, but analysts say that about one million people still go without treatment. Currently, treatment is only available in South Africa for those whose immunity levels have been significantly reduced by HIV. Zuma announced that the drugs would be more widely available to children and pregnant women. This change of policy is being applauded and called "the new spirit of activism" on HIV.

Each year in South Africa 59,000 babies are born with HIV. South Africa has the highest number of people living with HIV -- there are 5.2 million people infected. South African charities warned that 5.7 million children -- a third of all the country's children -- could lose one or both parents to AIDS by 2015. There are currently 1.4 million South African children that are orphans because of AIDS. (Full Story)

December 01, 2009

The Center for Economic and Policy Research released a report on the changing face of labor unions. In 2008, labor unions had a greater share of women, Latinos, Asian Pacific Americans, older, and more-educated workers. Furthermore, there is a shift out of manufacturing towards services. One author of the report said, "The view that the typical union worker is a white male manufacturing worker may have been correct a quarter of a century ago, but it's not an accurate description of those in today's labor movement." (Full Story)

---

An MIT economist, using data from the Congressional Budget Office, conducted a study that found that under the Senate's health reform bill, Americans buying individual coverage will play less than they do today for typical individual market coverage, and would be protected from high out-of-pocket costs. Individuals buying insurance would save an annual $200 (singles) to $500 (families) in 2009 dollars. And people with low incomes would receive tax credits that would reduce the price that they pay for health insurance by as much as $2,500 to $7,500. The economist, Jonathan Gruber, added, "This is in addition to the higher quality benefits that those in the exchange will receive, with actuarial values for low income populations well above what is typical in the non-group market today. It is also in addition to all other benefits that this legislation will deliver to those consumers -- in particular, the guarantee, unavailable in most states, that prices would not be raised or the policy revoked if they became ill." (Full Story)

---

Food stamp use is at a record high. [Although most people still call it "food stamps", it's technically called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP. The name was changed last year. Most benefits are now distributed through inconspicuous plastic cards, and no longer stamps or coupons]. More than 36 million people use food stamps. That is one in every eight Americans and one in four children. The program is now expanding at about 20,000 people a day. There are 239 counties in the United States where at least a quarter of the population receives food stamps. A recent study by a Washington University professor found that half of Americans receive food stamps, at least briefly, by the time they turn 20. Among black children, that figure is 90%.

"While use is greatest where poverty runs deep, the growth has been especially swift in once-prosperous places hit by the housing bust." For example, in 2007, Forsyth County in Georgia, which is just outside of Atlanta, had the highest household income in the South. Food stamp use has more than doubled there. Furthermore, there is growing diversity among food stamp recipients in the United States. "Virtually all [the people on food stamps] have incomes near or below the federal poverty line, but their eclectic ranks testify to the range of people struggling with basic needs. They include single mothers and married couples, the newly jobless and the chronically poor, longtime recipients of welfare checks and workers whose reduced hours or slender wages leave pantries bare."

Although the program is growing, federal officials report that they would like it to grow even more. Nationwide, food stamps reach about two-thirds of those who are eligible -- that still leaves about 15 or 16 million people who could benefit but are not taking advantage of the program. An under secretary of agriculture argued that lagging states need to do more to help eligible people enroll in food assistance programs.

The stigma of food stamps or welfare assistance still seems to persist, despite the growing number of people using food stamps. There seems to be a stigma that only lazy, idle people use food stamps instead of getting a job (which is obviously not the case, as these statistics point out). The article mentioned how when some new individuals join the ranks of the beneficiaries, they try to explain how they're different. One electrician -- who has kept his job but has high costs from gas bills as a result of driving to distant work sites, food prices rising, and increased health care premiums -- has started to use food stamps. He argues that people often abuse the system [with what evidence does he make this point...] and says he's different because he's married, unlike those people that "choose not to get married, just so they can apply for benefits"; he's a churchgoing man; and he works. He also said it's "morally wrong" that people use their food stamps to buy steaks, coffee, or soda. He says he will not use the government's money for luxuries like that. (Full Story)

And that's fine if he chooses to do that, but other people can buy steaks or coffee if they choose. It is their decision. Coffee might be seen as a necessity for some people. Are people not allowed to buy soda for their children because they're recipients? Recipients are only given a certain amount a month, and it's up to them how they spend it. If they make unwise decisions and run out of staples or quality food before the end of the month, that was their decision. However, most recipients don't blow their money on candy and sodas, they genuinely are interested in providing food for their families.

And I get annoyed by the people that say it's terrible that people choose not to get married, just so they can get benefits. These people aren't terrible, the social welfare and benefits system that is in place is terrible. This assumption that once two people are married they are more financially well-off can be misleading. Two-earner families can still be below the poverty line. Marrying someone doesn't necessarily pull you up financially, it could pull you down. The way our welfare and tax system is set up, the amount of benefits a single mother is eligible for (including Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; food stamps; subsidized child care; subsidized housing; health insurance from Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program; and the Supplemental Feeding Program for Women, Infants, and Children) can be reduced if she gets married and the amount of income tax she owes could be increased. So you can't blame someone for acting in their own self-interest and doing what's best for them or their family. If remaining single keeps them in a better financial situation than if they got married, can you blame them for not wanting to get married? The problem is not these people, it's the system we have in place. It is poor public policy to either push people to get married or to inhibit people from being married to determine benefits.

Furthermore, the electrician's assumption that he's different from other recipients (who he seems to view as cheating, lazy people) because he has a job...he's obviously missing the big picture. If you need food stamps, despite having a job, don't you think there are other people who are in your same situation? The fact that you need assistance despite having a job, don't you think that says something larger about our economy, our job market, our wage system, our health care costs? And that this can have an effect on many people? You're not the sole individual that is struggling despite having a job and being hardworking. And most people are jobless because of larger social social structures as opposed to any individual failing, such as laziness.

November 28, 2009

The Catholic Church has reported that they will deny communion to any Spanish member of parliament that votes in favor of a bill that makes abortion more readily available. The bill allows abortion until the 14th week of pregnancy, will allow abortion at any time in the pregnancy in cases of extreme fetal deformity, and will allow girls that are sixteen and older to obtain an abortion without parental consent. Currently, abortion is only allowed in cases of rape, if the fetus is malformed, or if the pregnancy endangers the physical or mental health of the mother. A spokesman for Spain's Bishops' Conference said, "This is a warning to Catholics, that they can't vote in favour of this and that they won't be able to receive communion unless they ask forgiveness. They are in an objective state of sin." (Full Story) [As a side note, the title of the linked article is the most convoluted, confusing title ever. Get some editors on that, stat!]
The Catholic Church using it's power to scare people into doing what the Church wants, or they will be punished? This has never happened before.

---

A state-run magazine in China published an expose on China's secret detention centers. These detention centers, sometimes known as "black jails", are used to prevent citizens from complaining about the Chinese government. These petitioners come to Beijing to report grievances, many of them involving corruption in their hometowns. There are as many as 10,000 "retrievers" or "interceptors" who are paid by local officials to keep petitioners from filing their complaints. These interceptors often roam the streets of Beijing and grab petitioners off the street. The petitioners are then taken away to a secret detention center -- sometimes its guesthouses or dank basements. The petitioners have their cellphones and identification confiscated before being locked up. They are usually held for days or weeks and are inadequately fed, and sometimes beaten. Then they are sent back to their hometown with the warning that they stay away from the capital. These detention centers are used to scare petitioners out of filing their complaints. The report counted 73 secret detention centers, and many are run by regional governments.
"Although the right to petition the authorities is enshrined in the Constitution, that right is frequently swallowed up by the reality of contemporary China's system of governance: local officials, facing pressure to maintain social stability, are penalized for allowing too many complaints to find their way to the offices of the central government."
It was surprising for many that a state-run magazine could publish such an expose. Especially since a Foreign Ministry spokesman denied the existence of "black jails" just a few weeks ago (after a Human Rights Watch report documented China's secret jails). Human rights advocates express guarded optimism about the publishing of this expose. As one researcher from Human Rights Watch said, "The fact that the report focuses on the issue in a substantive and detailed way gives us hope that the Chinese government might end its longtime denial of the existence of black jails and move toward closing them down, liberating the detainees, and bringing the perpetrators to justice." (Full Story)
It does seem a little suspicious that this state-run magazine was able to publish this expose. The Chinese government has very tight control over the media and goes to great lengths to hide stuff like this. So you wonder if this is all a spectacle to be like "look, we're changing! We're improving human rights." And they figured this was a good way to draw attention to it. But will they really change?